Protection Against Severe Earthquake Risks in Central Asia

On January 2, 2010, a 5.3 magnitude earthquake hit a number of remote villages in Tajikistan. According to the Associated Press, some 20,000 people were left homeless, but fortunately there were no reported deaths. The international media barely took notice of the event although Tajikistan, along with its Central Asian neighbors, lies in one of the most earthquake-prone regions of the world.

Tajiks walk through the derbis after an earthquake in the village of Talkhak in Tajikistan.

Ten days later, on January 12, 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti. Over 220,000 people were reported killed and more than a million people left homeless. On February 27, 2010, an even stronger earthquake with the magnitude of 8.8 hit the coastal region of central Chile. It left some 450 people dead and affected more than 2 million people. The death toll of the Chilean earthquake was substantially lower than that in Haiti despite its greater strength, mostly due to better building construction, better preparedness and better response, all linked to greater wealth and better governance conditions in Chile compared to Haiti. Nonetheless, the initial response of the authorities was criticized widely for lack of adequate speed and effectiveness (seeNatural Disasters, National Diligence: The Chilean Earthquake in Perspective by Daniel Kaufmann and José Tessada).

The Haiti and Chile earthquakes should serve as a wakeup call for Central Asia and for its neighbors and international friends. Located at the intersection of the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates, all Central Asian countries[1] have significant zones of very high seismic risk – virtually all of Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan included – and all the big cities of Central Asia, with the exception of Astana, Kazakhstan’s new capital, lie in high-risk areas. Indeed the cities in Central Asia have a dreadful history of seismic disasters: Tashkent, Uzbekistan’s capital, was leveled by an 7.5 magnitude earthquake in 1966 with over 300,000 reported homeless. Ashgabat, Turkmenistan’s capital, was substantially destroyed in 1948 by a 7.3 quake with between 110,000 to 176,000 deaths reported. Almaty, Kazakhstan’s largest city, was severely damaged by earthquakes repeatedly between 1887 and 1911. Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan, experienced a 7.4 earthquake in 1907.

A recent World Bank-United Nations report systematically reviews the extraordinarily high disaster risks which Central Asian countries face and concludes that earthquakes represent the highest risk in terms of potential loss of lives and economic damage.[2] Tajikistan might lose as much as 20% of its GDP from a major seismic event. If earthquakes of past severity were to recur, damage today is estimated to be higher due to greater populations numbers and density and low building standards. If the quake that hit Dushanbe in 1907 were to recur today, some 55,000 deaths and over $1 billion in economic damage could result, according to another World Bank-United Nations report.[3] According to a 1996 estimate there is a 40% chance that a 9.0 magnitude quake will hit one of the Central Asian cities within 20 years.[4]

But not only the large cities are at risk: The densely populated Fergana Valley, home to some 11 million people and split up by jig-saw-like borders among Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, faces very high risks of severe earthquakes. And the huge Sarez lake high in the Pamir mountains of eastern Tajikistan – the itself was formed by a big earthquake and a resulting landslide in 1911 – is at risk of flooding the downstream valley of the Amu Darya River with its 16 cubic kilometers of water, if another earthquake were to lead to a rupture of the naturally formed dam. Five million people are estimated to be at risk from such a flood in Tajikistan, as well as Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.

The Central Asian countries are poorly prepared to deal with this high disaster risk. As a holdover from Soviet days, each country has a government department to deal with disasters, but they have only very limited administrative and financial resources and few modern planning and response tools to prepare for and respond to a major earthquake. There is no effective regional preparedness and response capacity, an essential requirement in a region where international borders divide major population centers, such as the Fergana Valley, where the large cities are close to borders, and hence where major quakes are likely to affect more than one country at a time.[5] The quality of buildings in the region is generally poor for earthquake resistance and the population is ill-prepared for earthquakes. For example, a recent study by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) on disaster risks in Almaty – a city for which experts consider the likelihood of a major quake occurring in the next 10-15 years as very high – concluded that most buildings have a low resistance to withstand earthquakes and that a great majority of the population have a low awareness and preparedness for the high earthquake risk.[6] According to World Bank-United Nations estimates, only 1 per cent of Central Asia’s population is covered by disaster insurance, and the insurance that is available, while low in cost, is also of low quality and lacks credible reinsurance. Moreover, with the exception of Kazakhstan, the Central Asian countries’ fiscal resources available for responding to a major natural disaster are wholly inadequate.

The international community has not been oblivious to the seismic risks that Central Asia faces. In 1996, a consortium of national and international agencies met in Almaty to review the earthquake risks for Central Asia and concluded with a call for action on a region-wide basis with international support.[7] The Asian Disaster Reduction Center organized a conference in 2003 in Kobe, Japan, with United Nations assistance to assess and plan for disaster risks in Central Asia and the Caucasus. The UNDP’s Central Asia Human Development Report of 2005 prominently addressed Central Asia’s vulnerability to natural disasters and called for a national, regional and international response. The World Bank, together with the United Nations and the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Program (CAREC) mounted in 2008 the Central Asia and Caucasus Disaster Risk Management Initiative, which aims to assess the disaster risks in the region and to help develop effective preparedness and response capacity. In addition, international and bilateral aid agencies have provided support to individual countries to assist with disaster preparedness, including the UNDP for Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, JICA for Kazakhstan, the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation for Tajikistan, while Germany’s InWEnt and USAID supported regional earthquake preparedness initiatives over the last decade. UNDP is planning an urban risk management network for the major cities of Central Asia and the Caucasus and regional disaster preparedness has been identified as an area of engagement by CAREC. A multi-stakeholder group of donors, including the World Bank and the Aga Khan Development Network successfully carried out a project to install and early warning system for downstream communities in case of a dam breakage at Lake Sarez.

Well-meaning and important as these international initiatives are, they are at best partial, uncoordinated and lacking in urgency on a regional basis. In many cases, initiatives end with calls for action with no effective follow-up, such as the 1996 consortium, the 2003 Kobe meeting, and the 2005 Central Asia Human Development Report; small-scale interventions fail to be sustained or scaled up, as with initiatives to increase awareness and preparedness at a national and local basis; earthquake risks are given lower priorities than others, as in the case of the World Bank-United Nations disaster preparedness program; and initial attention flags as in the case of CAREC’s focus on natural disaster – while the World Bank presented a progress report of the initiative at the CAREC Senior Officials Meeting in June 2009, the matter was not on the agenda of the Ministers’ Conference in October 2009 and was not even mentioned in the Joint Ministerial Statement.[8]

The bottom line is that there has been little progress in this critical area since the collapse of the Soviet Union 20 years ago, and the risk of a major disaster possibly on the scale of Haiti, is a real threat. If anything, the ability of Central Asian countries to respond to a major disaster today, similar to the Armenia earthquake in 1988, which killed 25,000 people and caused losses estimated $14.2 billion, is less than in Soviet days. National capacities are very limited, borders are hard, cooperation among countries weak, and engagement from outside the region highly constrained.

What can be done? Seven steps should be the immediate focus of action, following the dramatic warning signals that the Haiti and Chile earthquakes have sent to other parts of the world subject to high seismic risk, and especially to Central Asia.

The first step that needs to be taken is to raise the awareness and engagement on this fundamental risk at the highest political level in each country. The reality is that, even as the poorer population groups are likely to be hardest hit in case of a major quake, virtually everybody, including the countries’ presidents and elite, is at risk. The now-deceased first president of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, was left an orphan at a young age when his mother was killed along with most of his family in the 1948 earthquake that leveled Ashgabat.

Second, the issue of natural disaster preparedness should be put at the top of the agenda of the two key regional organizations for Central Asia: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Eurasian Economic Community (EurasEC). These organizations meet annually at the heads of state level. SCO involves not only Russia, but also China. While the capacity for financing and implementation of these two organizations is limited, their summit agreements should provide political momentum and instruct the regional implementation bodies, in particular CAREC, to develop regional strategies and action plans with international partners, including the Eurasian Development Bank, World Bank, United Nations and key bilateral agencies from Germany, Switzerland and the United States.

Third, the focus should squarely be put on earthquake preparedness and response. It represents the single largest catastrophic risk and needs priority and urgent attention.

Fourth, the focus must be regional in addition to national. Given the distribution of seismic risks in the region, the nature of the region’s population concentration and the alignment of borders, major earthquakes are likely to affect more than one country at a time. With the limited resources of each country and the need for access across borders under international response actions, only a regionally planned and executed approach is likely to be anywhere near effective. Regional cooperation in Central Asia has been weak since the breakup of the Soviet Union, partly because the newly independent countries have struggled about the allocation of precious regional resources, especially water and energy. However, preparing to face the common threat of a major earthquake, which could hit any of the countries in the region at any time, should offer win-win opportunities for all.

Fifth, the engagement of the international community must for once be truly comprehensive and coordinated. One of the implications of the major recent disasters around the globe is the great difficulty of mounting effectively coordinated responses by external humanitarian agencies. Lessons from other disasters need to be learned and learned quickly. (see Homi Kharas "Build Back Better" in Haiti: Lessons from the Indonesian Tsunami). CAREC, which has six international agencies as members and which has the goal to develop a broader partnership agenda, would be the obvious umbrella under which to aim for this comprehensive international response.

Sixth, each international and bilateral organization engaged in Central Asia should give much more attention to the issue of earthquake preparedness, not only in terms of deployment of analytical, advisory and financial resources within the region, but also in terms of assuring that its internal response capacity to a major earthquake is fully developed, tested and at the ready. Agencies also need to be sure that their own staff on the ground is housed in facilities that are likely to withstand major shocks. The tragic losses of UN personnel during the Haiti earthquake are a painful reminder of this immediate risk to the agencies themselves.

Seventh, the response should include not only a focus on better preparedness by the governments and official international agencies, but must also involve civil society at the local, national and international level. What is more, the development of private insurance mechanisms, as supported by the World Bank in Turkey, needs to be fostered proactively as recommended by a recent World Bank-United Nations report.[9]

Any serious earthquake that hits a heavily populated area will have severe consequences. The recent experience of Haiti and Chile are a tragic reminder how important effective preparedness and response are, if loss of life and damage is to be kept to a minimum. With the high risk of intensive seismic action in Central Asia, national and international attention and action must be focused on developing better risk reduction, preparedness and response in the region. It would be real progress if action is taken before the next disaster hits, rather than, as is all too often the case, after the tragedy strikes.

South Asia earthquake and tsunamis

The South-East Asia earthquake and tsunami, which struck on 26 December 2004, affected 11 countries, killing more than 225 000 and displacing an estimated 1.2 million. The crisis required governments, civil society, humanitarian actors (including non-governmental organizations and donors) and the UN to respond on a scale that had never been seen before. WHO was able to respond to this disaster thanks to an extraordinary effort at all levels of the Organization, with regional and headquarters staff joining colleagues in WHO's South-East Asia Region to plan and implement WHO's response. Over 200 staff were deployed to the affected countries in the weeks following the disaster. More than 50 departments were involved in providing expertise and technical backup to the field operations.

Indonesia Earthquake! Massive 7.8 Earthquake! Massive 7.8 Magnitude Quake Hits Asia

A 7.8 Magnitude Earthquake shakes Indonesia. The Indonesia Earthquake is yet another in what has been a series of earthquakes from around the world. We have seen many earthquakes lately, including that from Haiti, Mexicali, the Philippines and more. Now, this 7.8 Indonesian Quake is the latest in this string.

A local tsunami watch is currently in effect for Indonesia and neighboring countries close to the Indonesia Earthquake. The quake was centered 127 miles (204 km) west-northwest of Sibolga, Indonesia, and was at a depth of 28.6 miles (46 km), the USGS said.

Reports are still coming in as to the extent of damage from this massive earthquake in Indonesia. The poor structures and buildings may cause this to be a very deadly earthquake in Asia.

What Does the Richter Scale Really Mean?

What Does the Richter Scale Really Mean?

Earthquakes are measured using the Richter Scale. Here's a breakdown of what the numbers really mean:

Less than 2.0: Micro
Microearthquakes, not felt.
About 8,000 per day

2.0-2.9: Very minor
Generally not felt, but recorded.
About 1,000 per day

3.0-3.9: Minor
Often felt, but rarely causes damage.
49,000 per year (est.)

4.0-4.9: Light
Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises. Significant damage unlikely.
6,200 per year (est.)

5.0-5.9: Moderate
Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings.
800 per year

6.0-6.9: Strong
Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 miles across in populated areas.
120 per year

7.0-7.9: Major
Can cause serious damage over larger areas.
18 per year

8.0-8.9: Great
Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred miles across.
1 per year

9.0 or greater: Rare, Very Great
Devastating in areas several thousand miles across.
1 per 20 years

12.0:
Would be strong enough to split the earth in half.

When (Not If, When) Will the Big Earthquake Hit the Midwest?

When the next "big one" will hit is the million-dollar question among earthquake enthusiasts. But perhaps an even more appropriate question isn't when the next big one will hit, but where.

Though California is often regarded as the earthquake epicenter of the nation, there is another major fault line that most people are not aware of. It runs right through the heart of the "American breadbasket," and when it has its (next) big break, experts say the impact could be far worse than anything the West Coast has experienced in modern times.

Comparable earthquakes in the New Madrid Zone and the West Coast. Red indicates area of structural damage, yellow indicates area where shaking was felt.

The New Madrid Fault System spans a 120-mile stretch from Charleston, Missouri and Cairo, Illinois, down Interstate 55 to end up in Marked Tree, Arkansas. The massive zone crosses five state lines and cuts across the Mississippi River in three places and the Ohio River in two.

It's true that the greatest risk of earthquakes in the United States is definitely along the West Coast ... but, although the tremors may not be as frequent, when they do occur along the New Madrid Fault Line, the damage covers more than 20 times the area.

When Will the Next "Big One" Hit the Midwest?

We say the "next" big one because a major earthquake event did hit this region in the past. The Great New Madrid Earthquake of 1811-1812 describes a series of over 2,000 shocks that spanned a five-month period, destroying farmland and causing great destruction.

Although the Richter Magnitude Scale that we use to measure earthquakes today wasn't available at this time, it's estimated that five of these "shocks" measured 8.0 or higher, and it's said that 18 were strong enough to ring church bells all the way on the East Coast.

The New Madrid Fault Zone is currently active, and has more than 200 measured shocks (over 1.0 on the Richter scale) each year. The St. Charles County (Missouri) Division of Emergency Management (EMD) reports the following activity in the zone:

• Tremors large enough to be felt (2.5 - 3.0 on the Richter scale) are noted annually.

• Every 18 months, the fault releases a shock of 4.0 or more, capable of local minor damage.

• A shock of 4.3 occurred along the New Madrid Fault on Thanksgiving 1996, which was felt by people in the states of Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois and Mississippi.

• A magnitude of 5.0 or greater, occurring about once per decade, can do significant damage, and be felt in several states.

Further, a damaging earthquake (6.0 or greater) occurs about once every 80 years, the last one being in 1895. This, says the EMD, would cause serious damage to buildings from Memphis to St. Louis.

A major earthquake (7.5 or greater) happens once every 200-300 years, with the last one in 1812. According to EMD, there is a 25 percent chance of an earthquake of this magnitude occurring along the New Madrid Fault Line by 2040.

A quake this size, they say, " ... would be felt throughout half the United States and damage 20 states or more. Missouri alone could anticipate losses of at least $6 billion from such an event."

What Does the Richter Scale Really Mean? Earthquakes are measured using the Richter Scale. Here's a breakdown of what the numbers really mean: Less than 2.0: Micro Microearthquakes, not felt. About 8,000 per day 2.0-2.9: Very minor Generally not felt, but recorded. About 1,000 per day 3.0-3.9: Minor Often felt, but rarely causes damage. 49,000 per year (est.) 4.0-4.9: Light Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises. Significant damage unlikely. 6,200 per year (est.) 5.0-5.9: Moderate Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings. 800 per year 6.0-6.9: Strong Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 miles across in populated areas. 120 per year 7.0-7.9: Major Can cause serious damage over larger areas. 18 per year 8.0-8.9: Great Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred miles across. 1 per year 9.0 or greater: Rare, Very Great Devastating in areas several thousand miles across. 1 per 20 years 12.0: Would be strong enough to split the earth in half.

How about another event like the series of quakes felt in 1811-1812?

Researchers predict that these types of events occur only once every 500-600 years, which means they don't expect another for 100 years or more. However, experts including emergency planners, engineers and seismologists have given the event a 3 percent chance of occurring by the year 2040.

Can Earthquakes Really be Predicted?

While no one can predict an earthquake with utmost certainty, scientists do "forecast" future earthquakes using the best methods currently available.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Center for Earthquake Research and Information of the University of Memphis, it's estimated that in the next 50 years along the New Madrid Fault Zone:

• There's a 7 percent to 10 percent chance of a magnitude 7.5-8.0 earthquake occurring in this region.

• There's a 25 percent to 40 percent chance of a magnitude 6.0 or larger earthquake occurring.

The EMD has given it an even greater chance, saying there's a 90 percent chance that a 6.0 earthquake will be felt in this region by the year 2040. They say it's events of this size (6.0-7.6) that concern them the most, since they are the ones most likely to occur within the lifetimes of our children, and have the potential to cause great damage.

Joan Gomberg, of the U.S. Geological Survey earthquake hazard program in Memphis, agreed. "If a major earthquake were to hit southern Illinois, the damage could be great," she said. "If it's a six, it depends upon where it hits. If it hits next to an urban area, it could do a lot of damage. But if it occurs in the boondocks, it won't be nearly as damaging."

If an Earthquake Hits the Midwest ... Are They Prepared?

According to an investigation by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Repeated recommendations from all levels of government in an eight-state region of the central United States have been largely ignored on how to best brace for an event that scientists expect will kill thousands and cause widespread chaos."

"We are entirely unprepared," said Amr Elnashai, who runs the Mid-America Earthquake Center at the University of Illinois. "It is really amazing -- really amazing. How can a country as rich and prosperous as the U.S. leave itself in peril this way?"

The Post-Dispatch investigation, in a review of studies and reports and interviews with more than 150 government officials, researchers and preparedness advocates, found:

• Many government agencies haven't estimated what kind of damage a major earthquake will cause to their emergency facilities, which could cripple response efforts.

• No plan is in place to renovate older schools to more up-to-date, stricter building codes or even to use low-cost fixes to strengthen them.

• Utilities are not required to report on hazardous material spills and other problems that could occur during an earthquake, nor their plans to remedy them.

• Key bridges are vulnerable to earthquake damage, and some states have no programs in place to fix them.

• Over 80 percent of counties across the region are late to file required plans on how they will prepare for earthquakes and other natural disasters.

• Some communities haven't held earthquake drills in more than a decade.

However, some progress is being made. Government research has identified key danger zones and risks of earthquakes, and, with all of the terrorism response training in recent years, earthquake response will also improve. Further, some areas have received grants to strengthen vulnerable facilities.

Further, according to the Post-Dispatch, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is planning a comprehensive New Madrid earthquake drill, which hasn't been done since the early 1990s, in 2007. This drill is so important that only one other drill, conducted last year, received higher priority: A drill for a hurricane hitting New Orleans.

Big One sure to come; question is when, are we prepared?

Big One sure to come; question is when, are we prepared?

The 7.0-magnitude earthquake that struck Haiti a few days ago can happen in Metro Manila, according to seismologists and geologists.

The question is: Are we prepared?

It appears that we are not. Experts said preparations should begin in earnest to minimize damage to be caused by the big one.

Director Renato Solidum of the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (Phivolcs) said “a strong earthquake can happen” in Metro Manila or anywhere in the country.

He noted that a 7.8-magnitude earthquake struck Luzon in 1990 and a 7.1-magnitude quake shook Mindoro in 1994. “It can happen again,” Solidum said.

Ismael Narag, officer in charge of the Phivolcs seismology department, also said a 7.0-magnitude earthquake hitting Metro Manila was possible because it is transected by the West Valley Fault.

“So a movement of the fault causing a 7.0-magnitude earthquake is realistic,” he said.

Both Solidum and Narag referred to the Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study (MMEIRS) conducted by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

Phivolcs said the West Valley Fault, located in the Marikina Valley, could generate a 7.2-magnitude quake.

Extensive damage

A 7.2-magnitude quake could damage 38 percent of residential buildings, 38 percent of buildings between 10 and 30 stories, 14 percent of buildings between 30 and 60 stories, and 30 to 35 percent of all public buildings.

The study also said the earthquake could cause 33,500 deaths, an additional 18,000 deaths from fire, and 114,000 injuries.

In addition, the temblor could damage nine bridges, cut 30 kilometers of electrical cables and 95 kilometers of communication cables.

Carlos Arcilla, director of the UP National Institute of Geological Sciences (NIGS), said earthquakes in Metro Manila could come from three main generators: the West Marikina Valley Fault, the Manila Trench that caused the Jan. 12 earthquake near Olongapo City, and the Philippine Fault System that caused the Luzon earthquake of 1990.

Arcilla said he knew of two private hospitals in the city built on top of a fault line.

“Some builders and owners don’t want to pay a geologist. But they would pay a feng shui expert,” he quipped.

Mahar Lagmay, also of the NIGS and an expert on faults, said the West Marikina Valley Fault had moved four times in the last 1,200 years in intervals of 200 to 400 years.

Due for a big one

The last movement of the fault was recorded at around 200 to 300 years ago.

“I think we are due for a big one. The strain on the fault is building up. So the probability of the fault moving and generating an earthquake is big,” Lagmay said.

As for being prepared for a big earthquake, Adelfo Briones of the Ateneo School of Government, said that the floods brought by Tropical Depression “Ondoy” was the perfect example of how bad local government units (LGUs) responded to a disaster.

“Because of Ondoy, there is some focus on LGU response and really it is more reactive than proactive. The focus is not mitigation. In Metro Manila, LGUs should look at the lay of the land and look at the geological characteristics of their locale,” he said.

Briones is working on a project on the natural disaster preparedness of LGUs.

Ill-equipped to respond

An audit-survey conducted in February 2009 found that a majority of LGUs were not ready to deal with earthquakes and other natural disasters, he said.

“We found that a majority of LGUs are ill-equipped to respond to disasters. There are some good policies and projects, but these are just islands. I’m not saying there are no efforts to mitigate, but the reality on the ground is different. We are a disaster-prone country, so we need to focus on this,” Briones told the Inquirer.

The survey included the skills and training of the LGU disaster-response staff, equipment and even advocacy or information dissemination.

Structural audit

For earthquake mitigation, Briones advocated taking a look at the buildings in a locale.

“How have the laws related to building structure been implemented? That is the big question,” he said.

New buildings have been structurally reinforced, according to Narag. “But I don’t know about the older buildings and some residential houses not built by real estate developers. All the earthquake drills will be useless if the building isn’t stable.”

Architect and urban planner Felino “Jun” Palafox has called for the conduct of a “structural audit” of all private and public buildings to determine their structural integrity.

“New high-rises should be safer because of the strict building permits. I am more concerned with government buildings like public schools and hospitals where shortcuts to getting permits are common due to corruption,” Palafox said.

Building codes

Arcilla said current building codes were “fairly good, if you follow them.”

“Let’s just hope there were no shortcuts taken, and hope for the best,” he said.

Arcilla added that tall buildings built after 1968 “have not been tested by a strong earthquake.”

He pushed for a review of building codes just to be sure but added that the “issue is implementation.”

Binondo, reclaimed areas

Arcilla said tall buildings in the Binondo area could be in danger because of its clay bedrock. “It was swampy before and the bedrock could be prone to liquefaction.”

Tall buildings in reclaimed areas may also be in danger because “the filling can amplify seismic waves more than solid bedrock,” he said.

Solidum said the best earthquake mitigation was “sound engineering practices. When there is a rupture in the ground, don’t build on top of it.”

Earthquake preparedness

At the same time, Solidum said the Phivolcs was active in promoting earthquake preparedness to the public, including making guidelines, providing engineers with data on faults, hazard-mapping, and lectures to schools and other institutions.

“Of course we cannot be 100-percent prepared. Hazard assessments have not changed since the 2004 study. But risk assessment can change since there could be more people coming into areas previously identified as hazardous. This is a continuing issue,” he said.